 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I don't believe it.
Our manager is asking why half his network drives are missing. On
investigation, I discover the reason: somebody has replaced his existing
logon script with a brand new one. Written in VB.
You may recall me explaining how the other sites have hundred-line VB
scripts that do absurd amounts of processing at logon. Well, it seems
from this latest development that they intend to push this suboptimal
"solution" onto everybody.
I am so damned *angry* that they would **** around with my systems
without even bothering to warn me. And the thing is, their fancy, whizzy
logon script doesn't *work* properly! And that leaves me with two choices:
1. Wade through a few miles of VB in an attempt to figure out why their
overcomplicated script is broken.
2. Revert it back to the 3-line logon script that I wrote which works
properly.
Option #1 is clearly unsatisfactory, and option #2 is likely to get me
yelled at. I love my job...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lol, I'd be in the wars at your place. :)
Just change it back to your script.
~Steve~
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 10:46:36 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>
>Option #1 is clearly unsatisfactory, and option #2 is likely to get me
>yelled at. I love my job...
Make your boss earn his money. Ask for an executive decision.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> Lol, I'd be in the wars at your place. :)
>
> Just change it back to your script.
Clearly they changed it to add a new drive. If I change it back, we'll
lose that drive. (Although I can easily add it to my script.)
It just makes me angry that they can just silently *change* stuff like
this without warning me. Now when somebody's login script falls over, I
have *no clue* what the problem is. Thanks, guys.
I'm also currently fighting a procedure document problem. Our director
of IT has noticed that I recently revised two local UK procedure
documents, so he wants those to be "retired immediately".
Still, our QA manager suggested that he was going to reply to that
particular request in two words - only one of which is inoffensive.
(After all, there's nothing wrong with "off"...) It seems I'm not the
only one who's irritated.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Option #1 is clearly unsatisfactory, and option #2 is likely to get me
>> yelled at. I love my job...
>
> Make your boss earn his money. Ask for an executive decision.
You're talking about a man who has a packet of sunflower seeds next to
his desk. (I'm not making this up.) Can you spell "bird brain"?
In fact, I take that back. It would be an insult to the birds...
I think my plan of action is to not actually *do* anything at this
point, just ask IT why this was done.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> I'm also currently fighting a procedure document problem. Our director
> of IT has noticed that I recently revised two local UK procedure
> documents, so he wants those to be "retired immediately".
"The IT directory must be made aware of all audit findings relating to
IT so that a proper audit response can be produced."
...because I'm not capable of producing a "proper audit response" all by
myself?
I'm sorry, maybe I *imagined* that last 6 years... but I could have
sworn I've been writing "proper audit responses" since before you were
even employed by this company! :-P
MUST...STOP...TYPING...>_<
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> MUST...STOP...TYPING...>_<
Fortunately, I *removed* that comment from my email before I sent it...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:13:58 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> St. wrote:
>> Lol, I'd be in the wars at your place. :)
>>
>> Just change it back to your script.
>
> Clearly they changed it to add a new drive. If I change it back, we'll
> lose that drive. (Although I can easily add it to my script.)
>
> It just makes me angry that they can just silently *change* stuff like
> this without warning me. Now when somebody's login script falls over, I
> have *no clue* what the problem is. Thanks, guys.
>
> I'm also currently fighting a procedure document problem. Our director
> of IT has noticed that I recently revised two local UK procedure
> documents, so he wants those to be "retired immediately".
>
> Still, our QA manager suggested that he was going to reply to that
> particular request in two words - only one of which is inoffensive.
> (After all, there's nothing wrong with "off"...) It seems I'm not the
> only one who's irritated.
Use that to your advantage. Seriously. That the QA manager is upset
about this as well gives you additional leverage to say "this is what my
procedures are supposed to prevent, but nobody follows them and now the
users are being affected by these random changes being introduced into
the systems by the other admins without them telling me about it".
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:23:18 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>
>> I'm also currently fighting a procedure document problem. Our director
>> of IT has noticed that I recently revised two local UK procedure
>> documents, so he wants those to be "retired immediately".
>
> "The IT directory must be made aware of all audit findings relating to
> IT so that a proper audit response can be produced."
>
> ...because I'm not capable of producing a "proper audit response" all by
> myself?
>
> I'm sorry, maybe I *imagined* that last 6 years... but I could have
> sworn I've been writing "proper audit responses" since before you were
> even employed by this company! :-P
>
> MUST...STOP...TYPING...>_<
Provide them with copies of your previous audit responses and reports.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> 1. Wade through a few miles of VB in an attempt to figure out why their
> overcomplicated script is broken.
>
> 2. Revert it back to the 3-line logon script that I wrote which works
> properly.
>
> Option #1 is clearly unsatisfactory, and option #2 is likely to get me
> yelled at. I love my job...
3. Tell your boss hackers broke into the system and you need to shut
everything down and clean up the damage done.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
unable to read this, even at arm's length."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
